1. Suit for recovery — Application for additional evidence allowed by trial court — Order set aside by High Court in revision. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 316
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.R.Babu
Punjab National Bank, Rajpura Township
Versus
Amrit Industries
Case No. : 1506 of 1999
Date of Decision : 3/15/99
Revisional courts should not interfere under Section 115 of the CPC with trial court orders during a trial unless the order is without jurisdiction or contains a grave error, as such interference unnecessarily prolongs litigation.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Revisional jurisdiction - Interference with trial court's order allowing additional evidence - High Court should not interfere under Section 115 CPC unless the order is without jurisdiction or suffers from an error warranting such interference - Interference by revisional courts during the course of trial prolongs litigation and is not in the interest of the parties (Para 3).
(B) Additional Evidence - Liberty granted by trial court to lead additional evidence - If the order does not suffer from jurisdictional error, it should not be disturbed in revision - Respondents are at liberty to take such pleas in appeal if the decree goes against them (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
A suit for recovery of money was filed. After the evidence of the respondents was concluded, the appellant filed an application to lead additional evidence, which was allowed by the trial court. The High Court, in a revisional petition, set aside the trial court's order, thereby denying the appellant the opportunity to lead additional evidence.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in interfering under Section 115 CPC as the trial court's order was neither without jurisdiction nor suffered from any error that warranted such interference.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC to set aside the trial court's order allowing additional evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional courts should avoid interfering with trial court orders during the course of a trial unless there is a clear lack of jurisdiction or a grave error, as such interference unnecessarily prolongs litigation. Any prejudice caused to the opposite party can be addressed during the appellate stage.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 115 CPC with the trial court's order allowing additional evidence. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Revisional interference under Section 115 CPC during trial prolongs litigation and is unwarranted unless the order is without jurisdiction or contains a material error. (Para 3 )
4. Revisional courts should not interfere under Section 115 CPC with trial court orders unless they are without jurisdiction or suffer from a material error. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial court order restored. (Para 4 )
6. When is interference by a revisional court under Section 115 CPC warranted?
Interference is warranted only if the order passed by the trial court was without jurisdiction or suffered from an error that justifies such interference. (Para 3 )
7. What is the impact of revisional court interference during the course of a trial?
Such interference typically prolongs litigation, which is not in the interest of the parties involved. (Para 3 )
8. What remedy is available to a party if a trial court allows additional evidence and the resulting decree is adverse?
The party is open to taking such pleas in an appeal if the final decree goes against them. (Para 3 )
B.N.KIRPAL, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE appellant Bank had filed a suit against the respondents for the recovery of Rs.4,69,192.41p. Some documents had been filed which it appears were not exhibited though they were marked. After the evidence of the respondents was over, an application was filed by the appellant for leading additional evidence. The trial court allowed the same. The High Court in revision has interfered with that order, the result of which is that the liberty which was granted to the appellant by the trial court to lead additional evidence had been taken away.
(3) IN our opinion, this was not an appropriate case where the High Court should have interfered under Section 115 CPC. It cannot be said that the order passed by the trial court was without jurisdiction or suffered from any such error which warranted interference of the High Court under Section 115 CPC. Such interference by the revisional courts during the course of trial only prolongs litigation and it is not in the interest of the parties that the trial of the cases should prolong. As far as the respondents are concerned, it is always open to the respondents to take such pleas in appeal if the decree goes against the respondents.
(4) IN view of the fact that the High Court ought not to have interfered under Section 115 CPC, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the trial court.
(5) NO costs.
